Delhi Judicial Services Prelims Mock Test - 1 - Judiciary Exams MCQ

Simple mortgage is executed without any property being delivered to the mortgagee; the mortgagor makes himself liable to repay the debt. Thus, a mortgagee under a simple mortgage cannot take possession of the mortgaged property.

Following are the provisions provided under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act :
(1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit.
(2) No suit under this section shall be brought (a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or (b) against the Government.
Therefore, a suit for recovery of possession under Section 6 cannot be filed against the government.

Convivial refers to a person who is cheerful and friendly; jovial. So, its opposite would be 'serious'.

Smita V. Crishna, the third-generation heir of the Godrej Empire, ranked first in the Kotak Wealth Hurun - Leading Wealthy Women 2018. The report estimated her wealth to be Rs. 37,570 crore. She sits on the board of Godrej Industries and owns 1/5^th of the Godrej Group alongside her brothers. In 2014, she made news with the purchase of the bungalow belonging to the late atomic physicist, Dr. Homi J. Bhabha, for Rs. 371 crore.

According to Section 49 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the transferee of a decree shall hold the equities which the judgement debtor might have enforced against the original decree holder.

The main characteristic of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is the separation of the Judiciary from the Executive. Judicial hierarchy is represented by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and first and second class Judicial Magistrates, District Magistrate and other subordinate magistrates continue to deal with problems relating to maintenance of law and order and the prevention of crime. All the important duties previously assigned to the District Magistrate under the old Code of 1898 have been entrusted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Section 405 in the Indian Penal Code deals with the criminal breach of trust. It says that whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits criminal breach of trust.

The Latin 'non compos mentis' translates as of unsound mind: nōn (not) prefaces compos mentis, meaning having no control of one's mind. This phrase was first used in thirteenth-century under English law.

An application for setting aside 'arbitral awards' is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Section 33 of the act deals with correction and interpretation of award or additional awards.

Specific performance is an equitable remedy in the law of contract, whereby a court issues an order requiring a party to perform a specific act, such to complete performance of the contract.
Thus, in cases of specific performance of a contract, the rights of the parties are governed by the principles of equity and law.

Parties may refer their disputes to an independent third party, instead of regular courts, under the provisions of Arbitration Act. Arbitration may be defined as the process by which a dispute or difference between two or more parties as to their mutual legal rights and liabilities is referred to and determined judicially and with binding effect by the application of law by one or more persons (the arbitral tribunal) instead of by a court of law.

A hostile witness is one who, from the manner in which he gives evidence, shows that he is not desirous of telling the truth to the court. A witness who is gained over by the opposite party is a hostile witness. The mere fact that at a Sessions trial, a witness tells a different story from that told by him before the Magistrate does not necessarily make him hostile.
It is interesting to note that the act does not use the expression 'hostile witness', thereby avoiding the confusion prevailing under English law by the use of the term. The section merely confers a discretion on the court to allow a party to cross-examine its own witness.
It is well-settled law that the evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused but it can be subjected to closed scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be accepted. Therefore, it is clear that evidence given by hostile witness can be relied on by the prosecution as well as the defence.

The Aam Aadmi Party in Delhi started the scheme of 'doorstep delivery of services' in Delhi from 10^th September.
According to officials, 40 services, including caste and income certificates, learner and permanent driving licences, marriage certificates, ration cards, transfer of ownership of a vehicle, old age and handicap pension scheme, and new water and sewer connections, will be available at the doorstep for an additional fee of Rs. 50.

Toxic' means 'poisonous and harmful'. The drug would be rejected only if the effects were harmful. So, 'harmful' is the most suitable option to fill the blank.

A state of emergency in India refers to a period of governance that can be proclaimed by the President of India during certain crisis situations. Under the advice of the cabinet of ministers, the President can overrule many provisions of the Constitution, which guarantees fundamental rights to the citizens of India. However, Articles 14, 21 and 32 are never suspended.

As per Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act, in computing the period of limitation for any suit, the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.

Section 45 - Opinions of experts
Section 67-A - Proof as to electronic signature
Section 74 - Public documents
Section 124 - Official communication
Section 124 states that no public officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence when he considers that the public interests would suffer by the disclosure.

Precept means an order of a court. It is stated under Section 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure as a request of a court passing the decree to another court, where the decree holder intends to initiate execution proceedings because of the judgment debtor having attachable properties within the jurisdiction of the court to which decree is transferred under Order XXI Rule 6 CPC.
Thus, option (2) is correct.

In the absence of any usage or custom of trade to the contrary, the implied authority of a partner does not empower him to
1. submit a dispute relating to the business of the firm to arbitration;
2. open a banking account on behalf of the firm in his own name;
3. compromise or relinquish any claim or portion of a claim by the firm;
4. withdraw a suit or proceeding filed on behalf of the firm;
5. admit any liability in a suit or proceeding against the firm;
6. acquire immovable property on behalf of the firm;
7. transfer immovable property belonging to the firm; or
8. enter into partnership on behalf of the firm.

Turbulence of times' is the key phrase here. This will render any prophesy of the turn of events rather difficult. Thus, from all options given, the best possible answer is (2).

Combined effect of Section 5 and Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act.

Article 19(1)(c).

Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC provides for rejection of plaint. The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9.
Therefore, option 3 is the answer.

Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides for appealable orders. The section reads as:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an appeal] shall lie from the following orders (and from no others) to the Court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order, namely:—
(a) refusing to refer the parties to arbitration under Section 8;
(b) granting or refusing to grant any measure under Section 9;
(c) setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34.
(2) Appeal shall also lie to a court from an order of the arbitral tribunal—
(a) accepting the plea referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 16; or
(b) granting or refusing to grant an interim measure under section 17.
(3) No second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this section, but nothing in this section shall affect or take away any right to appeal to the Supreme Court.

In a significant ruling, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M. R. Shah, and Ravindra Bhat, J. J. unanimously ruled that the protection granted to a person under Section 438 CrPC should not invariably be limited to a fixed period; it should inure in favour of the accused without any restriction on time. The protection granted to a person under Section 438 CrPC should not invariably be limited to a fixed period. The normal conditions under Section 437(3) read with Section 438(2) should be imposed; if there are specific facts or features in regard to any offence, it is open for the court to impose any appropriate condition (including fixed nature of relief, or its being tied to an event), etc. The life or duration of an anticipatory bail order does not end normally at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court, or when charges are framed, but can continue till the end of the trial. Again, if there are any special or peculiar features necessitating the court to limit the tenure of anticipatory bail, it is open for it to do so.

In the context of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the provisions regarding the culpability of an offender under the mentioned conditions are as follows:
Was below 7 years of age: According to Section 82 of the IPC, nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.
Was incapable of knowing the nature of the offence being of unsound mind: Section 84 of the IPC states that nothing is an offence if the person committing the act, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
Was incapable of knowing the nature of the offence having voluntarily intoxicated himself: Voluntary intoxication is not a defence under the IPC.
Had not intended to cause death and was done with consent in good faith for a person's benefit: This is covered under general exceptions under Section 88 of the Code.
Therefore, option 3 is the answer.

Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the offence of criminal breach of trust. If a person, who has been entrusted with property or money, dishonestly misappropriates or converts it for his own use or for any purpose other than that for which he was entrusted, and this is done without the intent to deceive, it would fall under Section 406.
If there is an element of deception involved in addition to the misappropriation, then both Section 420 (cheating) and Section 406 (criminal breach of trust) might be invoked. However, if the act is purely one of misappropriation without deception, Section 406 would be attracted. Therefore, in the given case option 2 is the answer.

In indirect speech, the pronouns often shift to match the perspective of the reporting speaker. In this case, "I" changes to "he." When reporting someone else's words, it's common to shift the tense of the verbs. "Am" changes to "was" to maintain proper tense consistency in the reported speech. The time expression "this evening" also undergoes a change to "that evening" in indirect speech. Therefore, the correct conversion to indirect speech is: "He said that he was glad to be there that evening."

The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, contains provisions related to commercial disputes, and Section 13(1A) specifically deals with the limitation period for filing appeals in commercial suits. According to the provision, any person aggrieved by the judgment or order of a Commercial Court at the level of District Judge exercising original civil jurisdiction or, as the case may be, Commercial Division of a High Court may appeal to the Commercial Appellate Division of that High Court within a period of sixty days from the date of the judgment or order. It is important to adhere to this period to ensure the validity of the appeal. Section 5 of the Limitation Act allows for the condonation of delay in filing an appeal if sufficient cause is shown. This means that if there is a delay in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed period, the appellant can provide reasons or circumstances justifying the delay. If the court finds the reasons sufficient, it may condone the delay and allow the appeal to proceed. While the primary limitation is governed by Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Section 5 of the Limitation Act can come into play to condone any delay in filing the appeal if valid reasons are presented.

According to the definition given in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, a fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. Therefore, option 2 is the answer.